Huh? They wear shorts on the court last time I looked.
Lockout!!!
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Huh? They wear shorts on the court last time I looked.
Yeah, I wish. The only way the fans become a factor is if people seem to lose interest, and I cannot bull **** that. I love the NBA. Or at least the competition of it, without the league as an organization, it's commissioner, or it's officials.
Numberica: I agree with most everything you post, but your belief that players should get 57% of the BRI just defies logic. Even after revenue sharing is fixed and if you eliminated guaranteed salaries and did all other fixes, player costs are still going to have to come down dramatically to make the NBA a viable league. When all is said and done, I believe the players percentage of revenue will be lower than 50 of the BRI and could be as low as 45% BRI. Lowering players salaries is a must.
I don't blame the players for this mess, it is completely on the owners because they gave the contracts to players who didn't deserve them, but how else do you fix the problem. The only way to fix this problem is to increase revenue or cut costs. TV contracts will go up, increasing revenue, but I believe most of them are locked in for six more years. Revenue sharing helps, but when 3-4 teams are making all the profit it wont be enough. There isn't any real option available to increase revenue to a point where players can keep 57% BRI so Player salaries have to come down.
I don't blame the players for this mess, it is completely on the owners because they gave the contracts to players who didn't deserve them, but how else do you fix the problem. The only way to fix this problem is to increase revenue or cut costs. TV contracts will go up, increasing revenue, but I believe most of them are locked in for six more years. Revenue sharing helps, but when 3-4 teams are making all the profit it wont be enough. There isn't any real option available to increase revenue to a point where players can keep 57% BRI so Player salaries have to come down.
If they're not earning the money, you can cut them. That lowers salaries. As far as calculating cap and something like a MLE (if it stays), the BRI should stay the same.
Take the current cap threshold and LT threshold, but make the LT threshold the hard cap and the cap the soft cap. The players that deserve their money get theirs, but the juggernaut teams are left with fewer options than they have had and would be hampered and cuffed. Meanwhile, a team like the Jazz can get rid of AK without a problem.
With franchise tags, Miami never happens. Shaq never leaves Orlando.
But it goes back to the point, how is it that the party with 43% of the cut (which is FAR more than any individual player could, has, or will ever get) can't turn a profit on 8-figures? That may be a player like AK's fault if you have guaranteed contracts, but it's not a fault of Shane Battier's, Paul Millsap's, Deron Williams', or Otheus Jeffers. With lower BRI, minimum contract players make less too. And franchise players, if anything, should probably make more. Most players in the league deserve their salary, a few turds ruin the punch bowl for everyone else (AK can't be cited enough, Jamaal Tinsley, Larry Hughes, Steve Francis, Brian Cardinal, James Posey, Bobby Simmons).
Last edited:
//r00t 4 Jazz
Well-Known Member
2 more recent contracts would be Rashard Lewis, Rudy Gay and yes I'll even add Bosh as he's a tier below a max player and the new CBA would hopefully even alleviate/keep teams from making that mistake as well that as well.
Numberica said: (I'm sorry to quote like this I just don't have the computer skills): "Take the current cap threshold and LT threshold, but make the LT threshold the hard cap and the cap the soft cap. The players that deserve their money get theirs, but the juggernaut teams are left with fewer options than they have had and would be hampered and cuffed. Meanwhile, a team like the Jazz can get rid of AK without a problem."
The NBA proposed the "Flex cap" which is virtually the same idea. Have a salary cap that can be exceeded up to a point and then cut it off. The players rejected that idea because in their opinion the LT threshold essentially became a hard cap. According to the players they will never accept a system where teams cannot exceed a point because that essentially becomes a hard cap.
Numberica said; "But it goes back to the point, how is it that the party with 43% of the cut (which is FAR more than any individual player could, has, or will ever get) can't turn a profit on 8-figures? That may be a player like AK's fault if you have guaranteed contracts, but it's not a fault of Shane Battier's, Paul Millsap's, Deron Williams', or Otheus Jeffers."
I don't think anyone blames the players at all, except for a few out of whack salaries. But owners pay more costs out of their 43% and these costs continue to spike. Electricity, gas, advertising, etc keep going up and up. The players get 57% without any responsibility for costs. The owners pay the players and then pay every other bill out of their 43%. If these non-player related costs keep going up and up the only other place to cut is the players portion of the BRI.
The other thing the players said they would never accept is non-guaranteed contracts. Since the players have rejected a flex cap and non-guaranteed salaries, the only other place they have shown any willingness to bend is on BRI, reducing their take from 57% to 54.5%. Players have to willing to give more to make the CBA work.
The NBA proposed the "Flex cap" which is virtually the same idea. Have a salary cap that can be exceeded up to a point and then cut it off. The players rejected that idea because in their opinion the LT threshold essentially became a hard cap. According to the players they will never accept a system where teams cannot exceed a point because that essentially becomes a hard cap.
Numberica said; "But it goes back to the point, how is it that the party with 43% of the cut (which is FAR more than any individual player could, has, or will ever get) can't turn a profit on 8-figures? That may be a player like AK's fault if you have guaranteed contracts, but it's not a fault of Shane Battier's, Paul Millsap's, Deron Williams', or Otheus Jeffers."
I don't think anyone blames the players at all, except for a few out of whack salaries. But owners pay more costs out of their 43% and these costs continue to spike. Electricity, gas, advertising, etc keep going up and up. The players get 57% without any responsibility for costs. The owners pay the players and then pay every other bill out of their 43%. If these non-player related costs keep going up and up the only other place to cut is the players portion of the BRI.
The other thing the players said they would never accept is non-guaranteed contracts. Since the players have rejected a flex cap and non-guaranteed salaries, the only other place they have shown any willingness to bend is on BRI, reducing their take from 57% to 54.5%. Players have to willing to give more to make the CBA work.
Chad Feldheimer
Well-Known Member
These players making plans to play elsewhere next season doesn't really make a strong argument that this is going to be a short lockout. Hunker down friends.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
Because they are expected with their 43% of the cut to run the league with it. They still have to pay officials, coaches, all the fees on stadiums, non-player personnell, airfair, hotels, and a multitude of other costs. Meanwhile the party getting the majority of the money have no expenses related to the business. It is all their money. The players deserve a good chunck of the money but more than 50% is insane. I would say more than 45% is still too much.
Again you want the owner's to fix their expenses but how can they do that when 75% of their income is almost directly spent on the players. And you don't want the players to have to take a bit of the loss.
I really hope that now that they are in lockout the owner's hold out for their original offer. Or something close to it.
So you hope the league splinters? Sweet. I hope you've missed the ABA.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Actually the league and owners do. Otherwise, there wouldn't be an NBA at all.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
I hope the league survives under a system that allows it to prosper. I could not care less about this group of players. Most of them would come back once the league started playing their games with different players anyway. What other option do they have? Go to play in Europe where a lot of the teams sign contracts then don't pay them? Or where most of the leagues have a limit on the # of foreign (to them) players they allow? There are a great # of players that would love to make even a fraction of what these players make. And by gaining control of their league it would not damage the product on the court for very long.
I am willing to not see the game for a while in the hopes that when they finally come back it is better. By better I mean diversity in the league and the owners having more control than the players. Right now neither are even close to true. The players almost all of the power and greater than 50% of the teams in the league don't have a shot at a title before the opening tipoff of the season.
I have pretty much given up on the NBA. I only watch Jazz games and playoff games that are interesting. This year I watched Dallas/OKC and some of the finals in the playoffs. If they fix it I for one will gain interest in the league. But as for now I am tired of watching the league being dominated by big markets. I am tired of watching players leave to play for teams with more money to spend. I am tired of watching superteams be made. Pretty much my interest in the NBA was going away. I see this lockout as a chance for some productive change.